Waiting to boost wage

The Minimum Wage bill passed the Senate and is waiting for its final vote in the house.

In mid-February, Archbishop Harry Flynn testified to increase minimum wage. According to the Minnesota Catholic Conference, Minnesota’s current minimum wage ($6.15 for large businesses and $5.25 for small businesses) is not a living wage, and working Minnesota families cite economic issues as their biggest concern.

The bill (HF 456/SF 875) would raise minimum wage for both large and small businesses. The large business minimum wage would raise from $6.15 to $6.90 on July 24, 2008, and then to $7.90 on July 24, 2009. The small business minimum wage would rise from $5.25 to $5.75 on July 24, 2008, and then to $6.75 on July 24, 2009.

As the law currently stands, employers can pay workers under 20 years old $4.90 for the first 90 days of their employment. This bill also repeals this sub-minimum wage category.

Back when he testified, Archbishop Flynn was asked to sign in, as all testifiers do. He signed his name, and in the column where it asked who he represented, he didn't put "Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis," like one might expect.

Instead, he wrote "workers."

Budget slashing and pregnancy help

Yesterday the House Housing Policy and Finance and Public Health Finance Committee voted to cut $1.9 million from the Positive Alternatives Act. It was an effort to save money and balance the budget, but it also leaves a gaping hole in Minnesota's outreach to pregnant women.

The Positive Alternatives Acts helps fund services for pregnant women and their unborn babies including medical attention, nutritional support, housing assistance, adoption services, education and employment assistance, and parenting education and support.

It was initially funded at $2.4 million. The pro-life advocacy group Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life described the spending cut as a "gutting" — a word that sends shivers up my spine. When you gut something, you tear it apart and take out something vital, like the meat of a fish or deer.

But this is serious, and the legislature is voting to take something vital away from Minnesota women. MCCL is concerned that without this funding, organizations that aid women in difficult or unplanned pregnancies won't be able to offer enough outreach or necessary services. And without the support these organizations try to offer, women will turn instead to abortion.

This is most true for low-income women who can't afford medical care or may not have healthy support systems as they go through their pregnancies.

“Last evening’s action by pro-abortion representatives is purely political,” said MCCL Legislative Associate Andrea Rau in a press release. “The House must not attempt to balance the budget on the backs of women and children by plundering Positive Alternatives funds. The Minnesota House must restore the much-needed Positive Alternatives funds to make sure that pregnant women receive the support and services they need to choose life.”

MCCL also pointed out that the $1.9 million budget cut is one-fifth of one percent of the expected deficit.

Where does the stork come into all of this?

It's about sex. 

And babies. But babies have a lot to do with sex. Usually. 

A piece of legislation concerning the regulation of "gestational carrier arrangements" is awaiting its third and final hearing in both the House and the Senate before legislators vote. And the Minnesota Catholic Conference is hoping it fails to pass.

The bill (SF 2956 / HF 3448) addresses legal parentage of children born as a result of in vitro fertilization. The church teaches against in vitro fertilization, and so local Catholic leaders oppose the bill. The problem is that in vitro fertilization (or "artificial reproduction") separates the creation of a child from the act of sex. And you just can't do that.

Archbishop Nienstedt wrote about the church's position on in vitro fertilization in his Nov. 2, 2007, column in The Catholic Spirit.

Couples who cannot conceive on their own may look to in vitro fertilization as a way to have a child. However, the process is morally problematic in two ways: 1) the aforementioned separation of sex from the act of reproduction (The couple's ova and sperm are united outside of the body in a laboratory) and 2) the process usually results in more than one embryo (read "itty bitty human being"), thus leaving the parents the decision to throw away or indefinitely freeze their offspring that they do not plan to bring to full term.

This is a tough issue, though, and one that should be handled with compassion, as couples who are engaging in his procedure are doing it because they so desire to be parents. However, Archbishop Nienstedt points out that children are a gift from God, and nobody has a "right" to them. Also, couples who desire children have the option of adopting children, which is a beautiful, selfless act.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting from the Vatican document Donum Vitae, (Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of procreation) asserts:

"Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus) are gravely immoral. These techniques infringe on the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him, and bound to each other by marriage…”

Archbishop Nienstedt (who did his doctoral thesis on bioethics) isn't the only one speaking out on this. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston also addressed this same topic in a 2004 pastoral letter:

“The plight of a couple who have difficulties in conceiving a child is something that concerns the Church community. We are pleased that the scientific community has developed some morally acceptable procedures that assist the conjugal act and not replace it… and Natural Family Planning techniques that allow couples to know when they have the best chance of conceiving.

"Given the Biblical injunction to care for widows and orphans and to welcome strangers, the childless couple might in the spirit of our faith consider adopting a child. It is a decision that should be made after prayer and reflection… Those who embrace the Gospel of Life must be enthusiastic supporters of adoption.”

MCC is also concerned about the Senate's version of the bill substituting the term "partner" for "husband" and "wife." "This change would undermine not only the sanctity of marriage but the reality of marriage as we have defined it these past 2,000 years," MCC said in a statement.

A little political jargon for fun

Happy Easter Monday! 

While the MN Legislature continues to enjoy a long weekend away from the capitol, I'm taking a quick side trip through the campaign landscape. Merriam-Webster online compiled definitions of commonly used politican jargon, which can be of great help to anyone following the campaigns. (Also, their etymologies are a lot of fun to read.)  Check it out! 

Two of my favorites:

mugwump \MUG-wump\ noun

: an independent in politics

The Story Behind the Word

A 17th-century Massachuset Indian might not recognize his people's word for "war leader" if he saw it used today. In colonial America, "mugwump" derisively implied someone who was a "big shot." The first political mugwumps were Republicans in the presidential race of 1884 who chose to support Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland rather than their own party's nominee. Their independence prompted one 1930s humorist to define a mugwump as "a bird who sits with its mug on one side of the fence and its wump on the other."

pork barrel \PORK-ba-rul\ noun

: government projects or appropriations yielding rich patronage benefits

The Story Behind the Word

You might expect that the original pork barrels were barrels for storing pork—and you're right. In the early 19th century, that's exactly what "pork barrel" meant. But the term was also used figuratively to mean "a supply of money" or "one's livelihood" (a farmer, after all, could readily turn pork into cash). When 20th-century legislators doled out appropriations that benefited their home districts, someone apparently made an association between the profit a farmer got from a barrel of pork and the benefits derived from certain state and federal projects. By 1909, "pork barrel" was being used as a noun naming such government appropriations, and today the term is often used attributively in constructions such as "pork barrel politics" or "pork barrel project."

God Bless the Troops

Yesterday was Minnesota's annual 48th Prayer Breakfast. Gov. Pawlenty asked Minnesotans to keep the military and veterans "at or near the top of your list."

As a girl in a military family (my brother's preparing to go to Iraq this summer), I appreciate his gesture of faith and support.

U.S. Representatives Jim Ramstad and Betty McCollum read from the Bible at the event. It was designed to be a non-partisan gathering in the spirit of the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. which was held in February.

Blessed Triduum to you all, home or abroad.

God said what?!?

VOX POPULORUM EST VOX DEI

The voice of the people is the voice of God.

That's what's above the House chamber in the Minnesota Capitol building. It's what the Minnesota representatives see as they cast their votes, making laws. I don't know if it's supposed to be humbling or empowering. Either way, I think it's kind of terrifying.

It should serve as a reminder to the legislators of the impact of their decisions, and that they are held to a higher moral authority. However, some would argue that some legislators like to play God, and make decisions in their own interest.

Either way, they're all on Easter holiday right now. They'll be back at noon on Tuesday.

Why fund private edu with public dollars?

I’ve been researching a story for this week’s Catholic Spirit on the Equity and Opportunity in Education Tax Credit Legislation. As I’ve written here before, the legislation — through a tax-credit-based incentive giving program — would provide a pool of money to help low-income students bridge the education gap.

Though special foundations created to distribute the funds, the money could be used to pay for a tutor, a field trip, or even better clothes — whatever will help that student succeed. It could also help low-income students pay for private education, if their current school situations are not meeting their needs.

So, low-income kids could get a tutor in a challenging subject, or go to private school? Is private school that much better than public school, that they could skip the tutor and succeed anyway?

Maybe.

I'll disclose that I'm the product of 12 years of public education, so I was ready to challenge this. And I’m sure that the Coalition for Kids, the organization created to pass this bill in Minnesota, wouldn’t say that private schools are "better" than public schools, but there’s a good handful of evidence suggesting that when it comes to getting high schoolers their diploma, private schools have a leg up.

Each year, around 25 percent Minnesota kids attending Catholic school transfer from a Catholic school to a public school between eighth grade and ninth grade, presumably because of cost. Many of these students are from low-income families.

“If we can keep some of those poverty kids able to go to Catholic school, there’s a 99 percent chance they’ll graduate,” said Jim Field, president of the Minnesota Independent School Forum.

It also saves Minnesota money. For every kid in Catholic or private school, it saves Minnesota about $10,000 per year. Between kindergarten and 12th grade, private schools lose almost 12,000 kids. “If we kept just 1,000 of them in the [Catholic/private school] system, that would save the state almost $10 million per year,” he added.

And why, besides moolah, would want to keep kids in Catholic schools? Because private schools have that 99 percent graduation rate. In 2006, Minnesota had a 99 percent graduation rate both for white and minority students. However, Minnesota public schools graduated 83 percent of their white students, but only 44 percent of their black students.

It’s the low-income kids that drop out. This legislation will try to give them whatever it is that they need to get their diploma and not be held back by their poverty.

We're not alone.

Minnesota isn't the only state experiencing budget woes. Today's New York Times points out that there are several states across the U.S. that are planning to make program cuts or increase taxes to compensate for their fiscal floundering. 

“Good state budget managers kind of manage their budgets like a household,” Jennifer Davis, the director of Delaware's State Office of Management and Budget, told the NY Times. “When gas and milk costs go up, there are only so many ways to solve it. You don’t eat out, you stop going to movies, you cut out the discretionary stuff.”

So what's the legislative equivalent to giving up restaurants and movies? Governor Pawlenty's given his imput — what do you think?

Kill Bill . . . maybe

It's a deadline day up at the capitol. All week, legislators have been hurrying to get their bills heard by committee in the house of origin. If it's not heard by the end of today, the bill's dead and will have to be reintroduced next session.

Deadlines don't apply to the House committees on Capital Investment, Ways and Means, Taxes, or Rules and Legislative Administration, or to the Senate committees on Capital Investment, Finance, Taxes, or Rules and Administration.

Not only are the session deadlines are a way to make the process clip along, they are also ways for legislators to kill bills they don't like. 

However, there's no Hanzo sword involved.

Congratulations due

Each year, JRLC honors a regular citizen for his or her work on justice issues. This year, it awards the Lawrence D. Gibson Interfaith Social Justice Award to Ellen Raeker, a member of St. William in Fridley. She's a member of an Office for Social Justice action team and is really top notch, according to Adam Robinson, OSJ's public policy coordinator.

She was obviously moved by the award. Her eyes were tearing as Rev. Chris Morton, the JRLC board chair, introduced her.

She considers her award shared with her parents, teachers and others who work for justice, she told those gathered in the capitol's rotunda. However, she said, "The people who really deserve this award are the people who struggle to keep a roof over their head."

I got to see Ellen in action March 3 at OSJ's legislative briefing at St. William. It was evident that she's passionate, smart and committed to social action and wants to inspire and guide others.

We'll be recognizing Ellen and her award in this week's Catholic Spirit. Look for it!

"NO MORE POOR!"

She was urging everyone — all 900 of us — in the room to shout it. "NO MORE POOR!" After all, it was the main message of the day. Bishop Sally Dyck of the United Methodist Church Minnesota Conference keynoted the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition's annual Day on the Hill this morning.

As I write this, hundreds of Minnesotans are meeting with their legislators at the capitol urging them to support legislation that will benefit the state's most vulnerable citizens — those struggling to provide food and shelter for their families, those struggling to to afford health care, those struggling to make it at all.

This morning 900 concerned citizens met at St. Paul's RiverCentre to get fired up for their afternoon of lobbying. They were high school students and grandmothers, community organizers and former homeless. I talked to some students from St. Thomas Academy who were there for their social justice religion class. They said they wanted to speak with their legislators about health care and housing issues.

The Joint Religious Legislative Coalition (JRLC) works with Christian, Muslim and Jewish communities to advocate together for issues of justice. Bishop Richard Pates opened the gathering in prayer, in which he quoted Pope Benedict XVI: "Love needs to be organized if it is to be an ordered service to the community."

This organizing of love is what JRLC does, its executive director Brian Rusche told the crowd.

"As people of faith, we have a moral responsibility to make sure there are no more poor," Bishop Dyck said. Referring to Gov. Pawlenty's budget proposal, she added, "We cannot balance the budget on the back of the poor people in our state, especially when a high percentage of them are children."

In this time of economic uncertainty, those in the middle class will be tempted not to be generous because of their own self interests, she said. "Yield not to temptation!" she said. A Christian's moral obligation is to work to eradicate poverty, she said before shouting "No More Poor!" again.

"That's your message — take it to your legislators!" she said.

(The photo's of JRLC's director, Brian Rusche, at the capitol rotunda speaking to Day on the Hill advocates before they met with their legislators.)

"I'm just a bill . . . "

I'm not sure I even saw it as a kid, but because it seems EVERY American kid of my generation did, I must have, too. And it probably had a deep and lasting effect my subconscious, forming my desire to be a politically informed citizen.

Well maybe. Maybe not.

I'm talking about Schoolhouse Rock. And more specifically, the "I'm just a bill" song. It's a pretty simple way of explaining exactly how a bill becomes a law. It's created for bills in Congress, but if you exchange "Congressman" for "legislator" and "President" with "Governor Pawlenty," it'll give you a fairly accurate picture of things.

(Also, the boy in the beginning is dead on with the "Whew! You sure gotta climb a lot of steps to get into this capitol building . . " I was thinking about that this morning as I hurried up them on my way to a hearing.)

This far into the session, I thought we might need a little primer.

So, I think it's worth checking out. I'll do a little more detailed process summary at another time for those of you who have the basic process down. But I'm trying not to make any assumptions . . .

Gov. Pawlenty's balancing act

Friday afternoon Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced his proposal for balancing the state budget — meaning pulling it out of a $938 million deficit. His plan includes no tax increases; in fact, it cuts 1/8 of the sales tax so that the money can be pumped back into our economy. However, to make the numbers balance, he suggests the Legislature cut nearly $341 million from its program spending and move funds from the budget reserves and from the health care access fund. The highlights of his plan are that it doesn't cut from K to 12 education or local government aid. (He does cut from higher education, though.)

He doesn't want to raise taxes because of the strain that puts on Minnesotans who are already facing economic challenges, he said.

However, his plan is hard on health care. His budget cuts the most from Health and Human Services and asks for $250 million from the health care access fund. The health care access fund supports MinnesotaCare, the program that supplies low-cost health care to Minnesotans who do not have access to affordable health care.

Saturday's Pioneer Press gives a thorough look at what his cuts would mean for Minnesota health care. Something I found particularly interesting: His plan is to get rid of outreach grants to Minnesotans who are eligible for subsidized health care, but don't know how to access it. Because this would mean fewer people would be insured, it would save the state $11 million this year and $55.4 million the two years after.

This strikes me as a serious injustice. Basically, it's saying "Let's not give the resources necessary to help the uninsured to get insured." It's a measure to allow people to stay in the dark and not get the medical care they need. If someone doesn't have insurance, he (or she) is not going to go in for preventative care, like yearly checkups. He's also not going to go to the doctor when something's minor, like a little pain in the knee. He's going to wait until it's unbearable, and the treatment the ailment's going to require is going to be a lot more expensive at that point. Preventative care is the least expensive care, but without insurance, the working poor aren't going to be able to receive it.

It's important to remember that this is Gov. Pawlenty's proposal to the Legislature — it's still up to them to craft the legislation.

Understanding 'Faithful Citizenship'

I made the mistake of printing it off the USCCB Web site. All 44 pages of it. Now, the document "Faithful Citizenship" is shoved under some old papers and Post Its, waiting for the recycling. I've found something that makes searching and understanding the document much easier.

It's the "Faithful Citizenship" Web site that's meant to help regular Catholics learn and teach how the U.S. bishops think Catholics should engage civic life and politics. It's divided into sections designed specifically for parish leaders, community leaders and young people. (There's a section for "All Catholics" too, so don't feel left out if you don't fit in the other categories.)

There's also a family guide to help parents guide their kids through these issues and even resources for prayer and reflection. It also can connect Catholics to organizations working for justice on issues like immigration, education and pro-life outreach. It also offers clarity on what parishes can and can't do to help politically inform its parishioners — for example, it can educate its members on Catholic Social Teaching, but it can't show partisanship in any way.

It's worth checking out. Let me know what you think.

Don't kick them when they're down

There's no money, but we've got to find some somewhere.

Last week, Minnesota's budget forecast was released, and the prediction was as stormy as expected: The state's $935 million in the red, and with inflation, the deficit is expected to exceed $1 billion. Governor Pawlenty said that the budget must be balanced without raising taxes. "I will not allow this session to turn into a parade of DFL tax hikes,” he said through a press release.

So, depending on who you ask, Gov. Pawlenty is trying to protect taxpayers or hurting state-funded programs. But the $935 million has to come from somewhere, so it will come in the form of budget cuts.

Catholic Charities' Office for Social Justice wants to make sure that the cuts don't hurt the most vulnerable in the state. Kathy Tomlin, OSJ's director, addresses in this week's Catholic Spirit the temptation the Legislature may feel to cut social service spending. Minnesota does not spend too much on welfare programs, Tomlin says.

The highest-costing Minnesotans who receive state funding are the elderly and disabled. To abandon them would be wrong. They're not capable of supporting their needs, and many do not have family to provide stability. At the same time, the number of children living in poverty has increased, as have the number of people living in extreme poverty.

And all this while we're facing what may be an economic recession. According to Tomlin, Minnesotans lost 23,000 jobs in the final six months of 2007.

I don't know where the budget needs to be cut. (If I figure it out, I'll let you know.) However, we can't remove the safety nets upon which thousands of people in Minnesota rely. These are the services that provide basic needs, like food and shelter, when they have nothing. These are the services that help them develop skills to be productive in the work force and, hopefully, eventually leave poverty behind. These are the services that affirm each person as having worth, whether or not they have had a rough go of it and can't make it on their own.

More than a dream?

Today at the capitol, high school students are meeting with their legislators in support of the Minnesota Dream Act. The legislation would allow all Minnesota High School graduates to attend college at the in-state tuition costs, regardless of their citizenship status.

This is the fourth time it’s been presented to the legislature. Last year the legislation passed in both the Senate and the House as part of an education bill, but it was struck when Governor Pawlenty threatened to veto the bill because of it.

At the University of Minnesota, it costs a Minnesotan $3,975 to take a “full-load” — or 13 or more credits — per semester. A non-resident pays more than double — $9,790.

Non-resident tuition is a lot of money, especially for someone who may not be at the top of the socio-economic ladder, like many of Minnesota’s immigrants, documented and undocumented.

Here’s the case: There’s a lot of kids who were born somewhere else and were brought to Minnesota when they were very young. They’ve attended public schools, been in school plays, captained the football team and been honor students. For all intents and purposes, they’re all-around good Minnesotan students.

Of course they’re accepted to college, but, because they’re not Minnesota residents, they don’t get in-state tuition rates. And for many, the $11,600 yearly cost difference between going to college as a resident or non-resident is enough to keep them from college. So they work in low-paying jobs where their potential is all but lost.

It’s good for Minnesota to have college-educated people living in our state, whether they’re documented or not. According to research conducted by the College Board, higher levels of education correspond to lower unemployment and poverty rates for the state. College grads are less likely to need social “safety net” programs. They have lower smoking rates and overall healthier lifestyles than non-college grads. College grads are also more likely to engage in civic work, volunteer and donate blood. Some research suggests they’re also less likely to divorce.

And it’s also good for the individual. For those who want it, a college education is an opportunity for students to grow in their understanding of themselves and the world, and to develop knowledge and skills that will serve both them and their families. Education itself is a dignified thing that serves to affirm the dignity of those who pursue it.

However, the Minnesota Dream Act does point to its authors’ desire for federal immigration reform. After all, how likely is it that an undocumented person will risk deportment to go to college? What are his or her chances of securing a good job after college if he or she is not a citizen?